Dems Get Their Wish To Advance Free Speech Limiting Amendment

I mentioned yesterday that I hoped Republicans would vote to allow the motion to proceed, that way we can get to debate to highlight just how much Democrats hate the 1st Amendment, and they did

(The Hill) The Senate on Monday advanced a constitutional amendment meant to reverse two recent Supreme Court decisions on campaign spending.

Republicans are likely to vote against the amendment when it comes up for a final vote, but by allowing it to proceed, ensured that it will tie up the Senate for most of the week.

More than 20 Republicans joined Democrats in the 79-18 vote advancing the amendment, well over the 60 votes that were needed.

“We should have debate on this important amendment,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said before voting for cloture. “The majority should be made to answer why they want to silence critics.”

Darned right. Of course, we know how the majority of the leftist media will cover this. Oh, and a cranky, delusional senior citizen continued to be delusional

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he would gladly debate the issue for as long as Republicans require because the amendment is necessary to keep “dark money” out of politics.

“You’re either for campaign spending reform or not,” Reid said ahead of the vote. “This constitutional amendment is what we need to bring sanity back to elections and restore Americans’ confidence in our democracy.”

by Sir John Hawkins

John Hawkins's book 101 Things All Young Adults Should Know is filled with lessons that newly minted adults need in order to get the most out of life. Gleaned from a lifetime of trial, error, and writing it down, Hawkins provides advice everyone can benefit from in short, digestible chapters.

So if Senators and Congressmen want to make sure they have their jobs for life, they can limit spending on campaigns challenging them to zero dollars. They can also ban books and movies that might influence voters in one direction or another–which is exactly what happened in Citizens United. For example, as the ACLU has pointed out, the proposed amendment would give Congress the power to ban the publication or sale of Hillary Clinton’s Hard Choices if she were running for office.

While the amendment’s policy implications are shrouded in uncertainty, it would mark a significant step away from the nation’s First Amendment tradition that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech” and toward a system where incumbent politicians could heavily regulate any speech they deem to “influence elections.”

Of course, this would mean Democrats could restrict their opponents. Republicans would be excoriated if they attempted to actually use the power of this amendment for their own purposes. Not that most would. Nor is the Amendment going anywhere. But, this is what Progressives want. Many say this is just for show, to put Republicans on the defensive, but, just like yesterday, I’ll say Dems really want this to pass, because Progressives are all about bigger and bigger government, putting more and more power in the hands of the central government, and continuously increasing control of citizens, businesses, and every aspect of American life.